Canadian media hatchet job

From the Montreal Gazette comes this piece, about a group of licensed competitive shooters (obviously a suspicious if not bloodthirsty lot!):

"The shooting rampage at Dawson College last month refocused the gun-control debate."....

"You'd never know it to look at them. In regular life, the Sunday shooters are just normal people with normal jobs....." [Zombies. They're all around you, but you can't tell it]

"Though professing a message of vigilance and safety, they collect gun paraphernalia, troll the Internet looking for gun websites and wear T-shirts logo'd with the provocative names of gun manufacturers and organizations. One of them is called Canadian GunNutz, and its emblem is a beaver holding an assault rifle."

"....they feel part of a misunderstood fraternity." (No ____?)

"The targets themselves are of two types: special octagonal cardboard targets about the size of a human torso, and thick steel targets called poppers, shaped in the rough size of a child..."

"But to an outsider, the match does seem to mimic something all too real: the modus operandi of a madman on a murder spree."
After all, weren't gunmen like Kimveer Gill just as brazen and agile as these shooters aim to be in competition? Didn't Gill fire his semi-automatics while out in the open and on the move? And didn't he aim to hit his targets?"

Yep, us USPSA/IPSC guys are all a bunch of mass murderer wanabees. You should see the guys that I usually squad with ..... caucasian loners with a chip on the shoulder ... er except for the black fellow who happens to be a successful attorney .... er except for the aircraft maintenance worker .... er except for me, an Hispanic executive with a telecom company ... come to think of it, the only caucasian loner is the cop. He's a shifty one. I've seen him sneak up a on targets (seriously - funniest thing I've ever seen).

I know that the Montreal Gazette is virulently anti-gun, so I suppose
gun owners should be grateful for at least making the attempt to appear
to be "balanced" with your article "Guns: A question of control". And
yet, I'm not.

Heinrich's usage of "amateurs" and "hobbyists" throughout are only as
thinly veiled insults; it isn't much of a stretch to mentally add in the
word "rank" before amateur, while hobbyist is dismissive, not too far
away from "geek" or "nerd". I guess we should be thankful he never
resorted to using the term "gun lover".

Personally, I don't see anything "provocative" about wearing gun product
logos, any more than sporting team, sportswear, or beer brand logos. I
suppose that is all in the mind of the the beholder. And comparing the
sizes of the targets to a human torso, or the size of a child, and
likening the movements of the participants in this sport to the actions
of the Dawson College shooter only show Heinrich's complete lack of
understanding of responsible gun owners.

But the most galling and egregious part of his article is when he asks a
law abiding gun owner, who can only be considered a "boy scout" and
model citizen, what he would do if the police pulled him over while he
had his guns in the car - as if he was expected to pull out his "gat"
and start blasting away like Jimmy Cagney, yelling "you'll never take me
alive, copper!".

If this article is supposed to present a "balance" to the others in this
series, it any wonder that gun owners complain about anti-gun bias in
the media?